Prats of The Week - The Church of England

 

Seemingly Church of England bishops are to debate whether God should be gender neutral - even dropping “our Father” from the Lord's Prayer. 

To quote something, someone once allegedly said:

Father, forgive them, because they do not know what they are doing!

 
www.nannyknowsbest.com is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"

Visit Oh So Swedish Swedish arts and handicrafts

Welby Bleats, Yet The Church Doesn't Pay Tax!

I see that the Archbishop of Canterbury is bleating about the economy.

As per Sky News seemingly Britain's economic model is "broken" and the nation is at a "watershed moment", the Archbishop of Canterbury has warned as Britons face the longest period of stalling wage growth for 150 years.

The Rt Rev Justin Welby said "fundamental reform" on the scale of the 1940s and 1980s is required in a report.

"Our economic model is broken. Britain stands at a watershed moment where we need to make fundamental choices about the sort of economy we need.

We are failing those who will grow up into a world where the gap between the richest and poorest parts of the country is significant and destabilising.

This is, therefore, the moment for new, radical policy options to be debated."

Here's a radical policy suggestion, make the Church of England pay tax!


Visit The Orifice of Government Commerce and buy a collector's item.

Visit The Joy of Lard and indulge your lard fantasies.

Show your contempt for Nanny by buying a T shirt or thong from Nanny's Store.

www.nannyknowsbest.com is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"

Visit Oh So Swedish Swedish arts and handicrafts

Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries

Guilty Until Proven Innocent

It sad to read that these days it is common practice for some organisations to assume that people are guilty until they can prove themselves innocent.

Such is the case wrt the Church of England and its attitude towards volunteer bell ringers, florists and organists.

The Telegraph recently reported that figures obtained through the Freedom of Information Act show that at least 58,000 people have been vetted by the Church in the last 12 months alone, before being allowed to work in parishes or take back office roles.

Over 80% of the checks carried out by individual dioceses were on volunteers. The checks usually used in relation to adults working with children in Sunday schools and church crèches (a target of the government’s Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS)).

However, the research also found that large numbers of volunteers with positions including organists, choir members, bell ringers, altar servers, welcome stewards and tour guides had also been subjected to criminal record checks.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Rev Justin Welby, seems to be driving the zealous approach; as he has said that the Church was being “utterly ruthless” in its approach to criminal record checks even though cases of abuse are “negligible”.

The Archbishop said that volunteers refusing checks will be told:

“You can’t come to church”.

Why do flower arrangers need to be checked?

The CofE insisted it would "make no apology for taking action to ensure our systems our as robust as possible".

An atmosphere of mistrust and suspicion hardly sounds welcoming, what will the church turn itself into if it suspects everyone of being guilty?

Just ask Annabel Hayter!


Annabel Hayter quit after more than a decade arranging the flowers at Gloucester cathedral after being ordered to undergo a criminal record check.

Despite having minimal contact with children, church authorities were concerned that the volunteer and her fellow flower-arrangers – with an average age of around 70 – shared a lavatory with choirboys.

The move – in 2010 – led to the resignation of six members of the cathedral’s flower guild.
Mrs Hayter said she had been "deeply insulted" by the demands for criminal record checks.

Mrs Hayter said:

“I had worked in that cathedral for 15 years – I’d had the clergy to dinner in my house – and I felt it was offensive to be told I’d have to go through a criminal records check.

It is an imposition that just creates suspicion and changes people’s perceptions of the church.

A DBS check is only as good as the day it is done as has been proved time and time again. What is required is awareness and vigilance by everyone. 

A DBS check gives everyone a false feeling of security and people’s guard is down.”

The church welcomes all comers, so long as they can prove their innocence.

Visit The Orifice of Government Commerce and buy a collector's item.

Visit The Joy of Lard and indulge your lard fantasies.

Show your contempt for Nanny by buying a T shirt or thong from Nanny's Store.

www.nannyknowsbest.com is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"

Visit Oh So Swedish Swedish arts and handicrafts

Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries

Nanny Bans Clock Winding

My thanks to a loyal reader who pointed me to some absurd Nanny nonsense concerning the goings on in Haworth (West Yorkshire) and its church clock at St Michael and All Angels Church, erected (can I say "erected" before 21:00?) in 1863.

For the last 23 years Jens Hislop has climbed the steps of the church several times a week to wind the clock.

Not anymore!

For why?

An insurance inspection declared that Mr Hislop’s stepladder and winding platform - which have been at the church for decades - were unsafe, and the clock has been stuck at 5:20 since February.

Mr Hislop cannot touch the clock again until £1,000 of safety work on the joinery has been carried out!

He is quoted by the Mail:

"I have been looking after the clock for 23 years and it has gone like clockwork. Then we had an insurance assessment and now health and safety has kicked in. 

I personally don’t think it is unsafe. But they say it’s dangerous. The clock is in perfect working order but has been stopped since February. It is crazy.

The platform is only 10ft off the floor and the wooden step ladder was here when I started 23 years ago and is no different now to what it was then."

As ever, the insurance industry wins!

Visit The Orifice of Government Commerce and buy a collector's item.

Visit The Joy of Lard and indulge your lard fantasies.

Show your contempt for Nanny by buying a T shirt or thong from Nanny's Store.

www.nannyknowsbest.com is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"

Visit Oh So Swedish Swedish arts and handicrafts

Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries

The Bells of Wrington

The sad effect of living in the Nanny state is that some of Nanny's subjects start to behave like her, and try to impose their own petty rules and regulations on others.

Such is the case for the good people of Wrington in Somerset who, thanks to the complaints of a newly arrived couple of residents, have had to turn off the chimes of the clock tower on the 15th century All Saints Church.

It seems that the chimes, that have rung each quarter hour for a hundred years, were not to the tastes of the newcomers who complained to North Somerset Council.

The council duly dispatched an enforcement officer, who declared that is was a "clear statutory noise nuisance". The council then issued an enforcement notice, forbidding the ringing of the chimes between 11pm and 7am. Unfortunately, because the chimes cannot be turned of at night, the chimes must be silenced 24 hours a day and the bells of Wrington no longer ring (there's a pun there folks!).

Call me old fashioned, but if you choose to buy a house next to church that has bells and chimes, then you might well expect them to make a noise as a result of the effluxion (there's a word I should use more often) of time.

Nimbyism and running to the state for every petty issue and annoyance is a rather unpleasant side effect of living in the Nanny state. Quite how the newcomers now expect to fit in happily with their neighbours in the village is a mystery to me, evidently they hadn't thought of that when they ran crying and bleating to Nanny.

Visit The Orifice of Government Commerce and buy a collector's item.

Visit The Joy of Lard and indulge your lard fantasies.

Show your contempt for Nanny by buying a T shirt or thong from Nanny's Store.

www.nannyknowsbest.com is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"

Visit Oh So Swedish Swedish arts and handicrafts

Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries

Fire and Brimstone

In the "old days", when God was an Englishman who loved to watch cricket, those who attended church could be sure of a robust sermon promising "fire and brimstone" delivered from the pulpit by a crusty old vicar.

However, in Nanny's Britain, such a verbal ear bashing is now rather unlikely.

For why?

Nanny's chums from the local council's health and safety orifice have decreed that the pulpit in the Church of All Saints, in Wyke Regis Weymouth, presents a clear and present danger to the health of the vicar.

The church has been forced to draw up guidelines after being warned by council officials that the pulpit is "dangerous", and that preachers might be injured while climbing its seven spiral stone steps.

In case you are wondering about the safety record of the church, it was built in 1172and the pulpit was added in the 16th century; there have been no recorded injuries to any member of the clergy mounting the pulpit during this time.

One wonders quite how mankind has survived before Nanny's health and safety Gestapo were created!

Notwithstanding the unblemished safety record, Nanny insists that a modern handrail be added to the pulpit.

As an alternative, churchwarden Gary Hepburn drew up his own safety guidelines.

These state that no one under the influence of drink or drugs will be allowed to use the pulpit. The steps shall not be approached in dim lighting, by anyone with poor vision or wearing bifocals, or by anyone feeling unwell.

Those entering or leaving the pulpit are advised to make maximum use of the structure itself, and the stone column supporting it to steady themselves.

You will be pleased to know that the inspectors from the environmental health department of Weymouth and Portland Borough Council have been mollified by these guidelines, Mr Hepburn happens to be a health and safety consultant.

He said:

"The issues were raised when a visit was carried out by council officials on behalf of the Health and Safety Executive. They were looking at the building and its use in relation to the dangers that might be present in a workplace, which is not comparing like with like, in my humble opinion.

The most contentious item was the pulpit and there was no way the church authorities were going to allow a horrible plastic and metal handrail to be installed, so we had to try an alternative tack.

In my professional capacity, I knew the type of things that needed to be said to reassure the inspectors and the way in which they should be expressed.

Fortunately my Safe System Of Work pamphlet was successful and normal service has been resumed – although I must admit even my faith was sorely tested at one stage."

What a waste of time and money!

Nanny is determined to destroy our cultural heritage, and the fabric of our society.

Visit The Orifice of Government Commerce and buy a collector's item.

Visit The Joy of Lard and indulge your lard fantasies.

Show your contempt for Nanny by buying a T shirt or thong from Nanny's Store.

www.nannyknowsbest.com is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"

Celebrate the joy of living with champagne. Click and drink!

Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Toys, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries

Nanny Bans Jerusalem

Nanny's chums in the Church of Engerlund have banned Jerusalem, or rather they have banned the hymn Jerusalem by William Blake.

Why?

It is too patriotic!

The Very Reverend Colin Slee, the Dean of Southwark, has banned the hymn Jerusalem from his cathedral (South Bank) because it is "not in the glory of God" and is too nationalistic.

The ban was revealed after the dean advised guests at a recent memorial service that it could not be sung, due to its lack of religious content.

The service was a private memorial service and therefore the choice of music, one would have thought, would be up to the organisers.

Silly Dean Slee!

Doesn't he know that if God existed, he would be English?

This site has no such qualms about playing Jerusalem.

Please sing along, at full volume!

"Bring me my bow of burning gold!
Bring me my arrows of desire!
Bring me my spear! O clouds, unfold!
Bring me my chariot of fire!
I will not cease from mental fight,
nor shall my sword sleep in my hand,
till we have built Jerusalem
In England's green and pleasant Land. "

Behaviour Management

In Nanny's world she doesn't speak English, she uses a mangled mix of bullshit "management speak" and political/socialist double speak when communicating.

Why?

Simple:

1 She is stupid.

2 She doesn't want people to understand what she is talking about, so she tries to be clever.

3 Her arguments wouldn't stand up to rigorous intellectual scrutiny if they were presented in English.

Such is the case for her stand wrt "behaviour management".

What pray tell is "behaviour management"?

In English, it is called smacking/chastising children when they behave like little shits.

David and Heather Bowen from Taunton have found to their cost that Nanny does not approve of "behaviour management".

The Bowens are foster parents who have been banned by Nanny from fostering, after they refused to stop smacking their natural child.

Nanny's adoption panel asked the Bowens to reconsider using physical discipline towards their daughter Emma, aged nine.

They refused, and have been blacklisted (that's a non word too these days isn't it?) over their "behaviour management".

Mr Bowen said:

"I am a parent governor at a local school, my wife works for the school parent teacher association, has been a special needs careers advisor and now works in the school. We both assist with children's work at our local church.

Based on the evidence presented to the council, we cannot understand why we are unsuitable and it seems that we have been excluded on the basis that we physically chastise our birth child, in accordance with our beliefs and UK law."

Linda Barnett, head of children's services at Somerset County Council, said:

"In assessing parents' suitability for fostering we take into account a range of factors which we gather from extensive assessment and discussion with the potential carers.

In common with most other local authorities, Somerset has a foster carer's agreement which describes our belief about parenting.

Where carers have a very strong personal belief that differs from the foster carer agreement, it is potentially unfair to expect them to operate to a set of guidelines which conflicts with this.

Mr and Mrs Bowen have lodged an appeal and we are in discussion with them about the hearing of that appeal."

It's not for the state to dictate to people what beliefs they may hold.

Little wonder that there is a shortage of good foster homes, if Nanny is so fussy about only hiring those with socio political beliefs that match her own.

Little wonder that "yoof" is so disaffected these days, as it needs boundaries. Nanny keeps removing the boundaries, what are kids and parents meant to do?

Could Nanny answer that please?

Nanny Rebrands Christmas

Nanny never misses a trick to push her views onto people, and what better time than Christmas to "re educate" her subjects?

Nanny's chums in Warrington borough council have highjacked the town's Chirtsmas lights, in order to promote their "ethical" views on recycling.

The lights say:

"Recycle for Warrington"

Council leader Ian Marks is of the view that recycling is preserving the earth, and is a Christian message.

The church, who actually have some knowledge of religion, think that the idea is bollocks. They are so pissed off that they have written a spoof Christmas carol attacking the council's message.

The Bishop of Bolton, David Gillett, said:

"I am quite surprised to see the usual Christmas

greetings replaced by the slogan, Recycle for Warrington."

The diocese quoted one Warrington church-goer:

"It is a clear example of a council that

has forgotten what Christmas is about.

Christmas is not an opportunity for marketing

departments to promote council branding."

The spoof hymn reads:

"For Christmas here in Warrington,

hath this year been replaced,

with chidings of throwing all in bins,

all in bins,

with chidings of throwing all in bins."

Nanny is not the first authoritarian regime to rebrand Christmas..can you guess who did it before children?

Grave Concern

The Health and Safety Gestapo strike again, this time not content with interfering with the living they are now interfering with the dead.

Nanny's Health and Safety Gestapo have been running an ongoing campaign (I first commented on this issue in January 2005) to force families to pay to shore up gravestones deemed "dangerous" by our "old friends" our "respected" local councils.

Needless to say, you can see why Nanny is so keen to interfere here; it's not the safety or otherwise of these gravestones, but the fact Nanny sees the opportunity for a nice little earner for herself and her lackeys.

John Mann has seen through Nanny's scheming and notes, quite rightly, that no-one has been killed by falling headstones in churchyards in the past 10 years.

Yet families are being strong armed into paying local councils money, based on the results of our "old friend" the risk assessment.

Pass the sick bag someone!

The Local Government Association (LGA), needless to say, claim that the money is needed (well they would, wouldn't they?). An LGA spokesman said that most cemeteries are owned by local authorities, and "in the majority of cases" those authorities had covered the cost of making headstones safe.

Where the owners of plots had been charged "these costs are reasonable and it would be unfair to generalise from one authority alone".

Headstones are made safe by "staking" (not something you see in a Hammer film), in which wooden stakes are driven into the ground next to the headstones to prevent them toppling over.

Mr Mann paid for an independent "topple test" at a graveyard in his Bassetlaw constituency, the result indicated that 95% of headstone staking is unnecessary.

The reason that so many "topple tests" are showing up safety problems is that they are contracted out to private companies, who have a financial incentive to deem everything unsafe.

Mr Mann, all credit to him, is now planning on becoming an accredited gravestone "topple tester" so that he can independently check whether head stones need to be shored up.

As he said:

"These things simply don't fall on people.

There is much more chance of people dying

on their way to church."

As ever with "health and safety" rules, an entire industry has sprung up intent on screwing the public for every penny that it has got; aided and abetted by local councils, who take a nice percentage for themselves.

It is time that we rid ourselves of local councils, who add nothing but extra costs and administrative burdens to the daily lives of the people of Britain.

Burke and Hare II

I am pleased to see that yesterday's article, about our substance abusing chums in the butchers' profession, has provoked some good "intercourse".

Sad to say, but the butchers forget that preserving life is not just about keeping the body functioning in perpetuity; it is also about the quality of life.

What purpose does it serve to be a "living" corpse (see Edgar Alan Poe's "The Facts in the Case of M. Valdimar") if you are senile, attached to a machine and your dignity long since taken away from you by the state or the substance abusing butchers and their minions? (Catholic church and other cults should take note of that!).

My father well understood that, and refused treatment for his cancer; he managed to die with dignity, at home, without being plugged into a machine and without being in pain.

I would also mention a fine old lady who I had the privilege to know, when I was a youngster (yes folks, I was young once:)), and acted as an honorary granny.

She was a district nurse (1920's to I guess 1950's), who by the way delivered my father, she spent many nights sitting by the bedsides of those who were dying; ensuring that they died with dignity.

She never feared death (something that our weak coddled youth obsessed society seems to do); noting that having seen so many die, that it was merely a matter of going to sleep. In those days the butchers couldn't keep the body going beyond its proper time!

She died in her 80's (1979) in her own home, sitting in her chair one evening; all very peaceful, and all very dignified.

As to the various comments about what to do with your body post demise, eg being made into a diamond, I refer you to this:

"I have spent the first forty years of my life eating good food and drinking fine wines, ales and spirits; I fully intend to continue in the same vein over the next forty, or so, years. However, when I do finally "pop my clogs" I would like to be made into a pate which would be served at my wake. That way my friends will be able to relive the culinary experiences of my life. Should you not wish to wait that long, then may I suggest that you read on."

Source?

Why none other than my own book, "Accountants Can Cook".

Unlike Harry Potter, feel free to download it for free!

Ken

Sorry

Nanny's chums in the Church of England have got themselves into a bit of a state over slavery, which the British Empire abolished 200 years ago.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams has suggested that the Church might need to pay reparations, whilst the Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, has said that an apology is required.

Here's why they are wrong:

• Britain was the first country in the modern world to abolish slavery, we have nothing to apologise for.



• Genetic trees show that there are more than a handful of "white" Brits with African origins; to whom should we apologise, ourselves?



• The Greeks used slaves, the Italians used Greek slaves, the Nazis used European and Jewish slaves, the Americans used African American slaves, the Africans use African slaves, Japan in the last war used sex slaves from China and Korea etc etc. Will they all be apologising too?



• Slavery still exists in the world today. Africans use children to fight in wars and to dig for diamonds, and East European girls are trafficked into Western brothels.



• Africans were selling Africans into slavery long before Britain ever set foot in the place.



• The wealth of the Church of England, and Britain as whole, is in part built on the profits of slavery. An apology cannot undo that.



• The West enjoys cheap goods and foodstuffs manufactured by people in the Far East, living on very very low wages, will we stop buying these goods? To apologise for slavery, yet still consume these goods is hypocritical.

You should no more regret the actions and policies of past centuries than you should regret the invention of gunpowder, the bow and arrow or the atomic bomb. What is done is done, move forward and look to the future.

An apology cannot change the past, and does not address the problems of the present.

Nanny Bans Prayers

Nanny is a strange old bird, on the one hand Bliary and some of his leading ministers unwisely bring their Christian/Catholic religious beliefs into the political arena (politics and religion do not mix), yet on the other hand Nanny tries to expunge Christianity from British society.

One such instance of "expungement" occurred recently in one of Britain's oldest boroughs, Totnes. Totnes Town Council, for the last 600 years, has opened proceedings with a prayer to God asking for help.

Nanny has now decided to ban this, as it may offend others.

Mayor Pruw Boswell has now ordered that the prayers be replaced with a "quiet moment of reflection", so the council could be "sensitive to others' needs".

The Reverend Gordon Davies, of Totnes Methodist Church, thinks that this idea is bollocks.

Quote:

"I know many non-believers who found the prayers of great comfort

because they are for the good of others.

If people felt it was offensive they didn't have to join in."

The irony being that the one councillor who voted against the ban was in fact an atheist.

Funny old world isn't it?

Thought Crimes

Can one commit a crime, merely by thinking about it?

The Catholic Church would have us believe that we will be condemned to ever lasting hell for "thought crimes", even though we never act on our thought and carry out our "criminal/immoral impulse" in reality.

However, Nanny intends to go one stage further than Holy Mother Church; she intends to lock people up in this life for their thought crimes, or rather for their perceived thought crimes.

I think it fair to say that we in Britain produce more than our fair share of people with, how shall I put it?, unusual and challenging personalities. In short, we are a nation of individualistic, strong willed eccentrics.

Now, Nanny doesn't like this; because such people are very difficult to control and to break. Hence the fact that we have always taken a stand against foreign aggression, even when the odds have been heavily stacked against us.

Nanny has decided to try to use the medical profession to identify people who, because of their "unusual personalities", may commit a crime in the future (even though they have yet to commit a crime). Once these people have been identified, Nanny would of course lock them up for our own, and their, "protection" for an indefinite period of time.

Nice eh?

Sounds all a bit too similar to other past dictatorships doesn't it?

The question is, what constitutes an "odd personality"?

Could, for example, the elderly lady who keeps 20 cats be considered to be odd?

No?

What if she was also leading a campaign against the council tax?

Maybe she needs to be locked up, because she is a threat?

Get my point?

Were the doctors to obey Nanny, and report patients with "unusual" personalities, it would be a breach of their ethics.

The doctors face a dilemma they will be damned if they do, and damned if they don't. Quite how a doctor can predict from someone's unusual behaviour that he or she is a future criminal is beyond me.

However, instead of blaming the police and the Home Secretary Nanny will in future be able to blame the doctors for the rise in the crime rate.

It's a real winner!

Nanny Bans Bells

Tis soon the season to be miserable, and rest assured that Nanny is well up to speed in ensuring that as many people as possible are inconvenienced this Christmas by her anti Christmas nonsense.

Callington Town Band in Cornwall, a registered charity, have found out to their cost that they can't play Jingle Bells in their Christmas shows unless they pay for a licence.

The reason?

The song has no religious content.

The band will have to pay £21 each for seven temporary licences to cover their Christmas programme because Nanny, in the form of the local licensing authority, says so.

Nanny's chums in Caradon District Council's licensing department told the band it would fall foul of the Licensing Act 2003, if it played anything other than religious based carols during its seven Christmas concerts.

The council says that a temporary entertainment notice was needed every time entertainment was provided in venues without public licences.

Now common sense surely dictates that a sensible way around this could be found, eg the fee is waived or the seven concerts are counted as one.

After all, the Licensing Act was meant to cover nightclubs and commercial operations rather than charitable Christmas concerts.

However, in Nanny's Britain common sense has been banned. Local councils are experts in not applying common sense, indeed one wonders if their role in life is to in fact deliberately antagonise and suppress the people that they claim they serve?

One other point of course, that stares us in the face like a syphilitic sore, is that of course the good old boys on Caradon District Council will make some money out of charging seven times for the same event.

Funny that isn't?

Cliff McKane, the band chairman, said:

"We were aghast when we received the letter

telling us that we had to have a license

unless we played on private property.

It was amazing."

The band a raises hundreds of pounds for charity each year, this year they are fundraising for the Cornwall Blind Association.

The local MP, Colin Breed, said that the ruling was an unintentional consequence of the licensing operations:

"It's just total nonsense.

We have to get to the question of whether the band are to play Jingle Bells.

Hopefully common sense will prevail.

I'm trying to get a more localised version of the law

hopefully we will resolve it before anyone plays Jingle Bells."

Nice to hear, but he shouldn't have to waste his time (and taxpayer's money) on this bollocks in the first place.

Mr McKane noted that he was confused with the new licensing laws which he says have meant the band need a license if they perform in a church yard, but not a few yards away inside the church building.

"Fines can be as much as £6,000 I've been told.

A lot of district councils are turning a blind eye."

Caradon District Council's licensing officer, Michelle Brooking, stonewalled by hiding behind the law:

"The ruling was brought in by the Licensing Act in 2003."

Can anyone tell what use local councils are?

They seem to be no use to man nor beast.

Their only rationale seems to be to enforce bureaucratic rules on the local electorate as a means of raising money, which is then spent on their salaries and expenses.

Time to abolish local councils methinks!

What say you?

Send an early Christmas message to Caradon District Council via these links:

Twats!

Chief Executive

Leader of The Council

The Dangers of Singing

Nanny has something of a problem with people doing things "off their own bat", she doesn't approve of it at all.

Only those activities that are fully regulated and, by definition, fully controlled by Nanny are allowed.

Such is the fate of the Terrington Choir of Terrington All Saints Church, who were planning a grand fundraising event next year to mark the tenth anniversary of local music, drama and crafts.

Seemingly Nanny will not allow the choir to sing in the local church, until a risk assessment is commissioned.

The festival's steering committee has been told it must carry out detailed assessments of every potential risk in every location across the village, where the scores of events will be held, before it can go ahead.

Ian Hughes, the village postmaster and one of the organisers, blamed today's litigation culture for making it impossible to hold free local events.

Quote:

"The world's getting crazy.

We have concerts in the church without any trouble

but we were told for the first time this year

that absolutely every last thing has to have a risk assessment done

to try and limit our liability.

I appreciate the importance of self-policing

and trying to concentrate our minds on potential problems

but this is madness.

I guess that's how life is these days.

It's because of the culture we live in these days

where the slightest thing can get you sued."

Scarborough and Whitby MP, Robert Goodwill, said:

"Unfortunately, we live in a culture of blame

where even the most innocent and routine of activities

has to be insured and risk- assessed.

People have been going to Terrington All Saints Church

for hundreds of years without any catastrophes that I'm aware of.

What's next?

Bell ringers having to wear helmets in case a bell falls?

Although Terrington Feast will be going ahead,

there are other events that have had to be cancelled

because of the prohibitive cost of insurance.

Too many groups are having to jump

through the most ridiculous of hoops

to hold the simplest of charitable events."

The culture of blame is nurtured and encouraged by the political classes. Time to dump the politicians methinks, and return to commonsense.

Nanny Bans Halloween

As the pumpkin season approaches, and ghouls, goblins and witches don their cloaks ready to scare the "living daylights" (you thought I was going to say "shit" didn't you?) out of you, one of Nanny's chums has decided to put his foot down about the whole nasty little business of Halloween.

The Bishop of Bolton, the Right Rev David Gillett, is asking Britain's retailers to stock alternatives to traditional Halloween merchandise.

Why?

In his view they are helping to create a "climate of fear".

Actually I rather thought that it was the media, aided and abetted by Nanny, that had created a real climate of fear over Muslim extremism, terrorists, obesity, global warming and bird flu etc.

Seems that I was wrong!

Anyhoo, the Right Rev David Gillett said that shops were helping to promote a "dark and negative" side of the festival.

He said:

"I share the view of many Christians

that large retailers are increasingly keen to commercialise

Halloween celebrations

in a way that pressurises parents to purchase goods

that promote the dark, negative side of Halloween

and could encourage antisocial behaviour.

I am worried that Halloween has the potential to trivialise the realities of evil in the world."

What about the far more damaging rampant consumerism and excess indulgence of Christmas then?

The bishop seems to forget that all Christian festivals are in fact linked and timed to coincide with our pagan past, a ham fisted way of trying to make us forget our past in fact.

Now we know why the Church of England is becoming an irrelevance.

Off The Buses

Seemingly some of Nanny's chums are a bit fussy about who rides on school buses. In fact they are so fussy that they check out your religion first.

No kidding!

Nanny's chums at Townsend Church of England School, in St Albans, are insisting that their pupils who wish to use the school bus must have been baptised. Syndi Jai, 11, a pupil at the school found this to her cost the other week when she was refused access to the bus because she was the wrong religion.

Ain't religion marvellous!

She was told that she could not catch the school bus from her home town to Townsend Church of England School in St Albans.

Her mum, Frances Wood, said:

"Syndi has been in a right state.

She is so anxious about having to go to school on the public bus."

It seems that other children are having similar problems.

Jamie Ankers, also 11, has also been refused a bus place (even though he is a pupil at the school) because he is a Methodist.

His mum Jean Smith, said she was originally asked if she would pay £230 a term for the school bus place.

"Then they sent me a letter at the end of August saying he didn't get a place."

Seemingly Townsend School is not the only one to use religion to segregate its bus places in St Albans, Nicholas Breakspear Roman Catholic School in St Albans is also doing the same (except they are banning non catholic pupils from their bus).

Nanny's chums on Herts County Council are backing the schools.

However, Cllr Cowan said:

"I cannot see it's the county council's job to divide children.

The school makes its own selection.

In a slightly different context

it's like separate treatment for blacks and whites."

Another example of religion dividing people.

Heil The Pope

Well, well, well, it seems that Pope Benedict XVI has caused something of a stir with his recent remarks at Regensburg.

In his speech at Regensburg University, the Pope explored the historical and philosophical differences between Islam and Christianity, and the relationship between violence and faith.

He quoted Emperor Manuel II Paleologos of the Byzantine Empire, the Orthodox Christian empire which had its capital in what is now the Turkish city of Istanbul.

He quoted the emperor:

"Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman,

such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

The Pope said "I quote" twice to stress that the words were not his, and added that violence was "incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul".

There has been quite a kerfuffle, with various groups of "outraged" people calling for an apology, and even some good old fashioned effigy burning (reminiscent of Belfast in the 70's).

Even in the UK some groups have called for an apology. Baroness Uddin said that politicians must put pressure on Pope Benedict to express regret for the "disappointment and hurt" that he caused by his remarks.

The Muslim Council of Britain's secretary general, Mohammed Abdul Bari, said that the emperor's views about Islam were "ill informed" and "frankly bigoted".

The British Muslim News newspaper has called for the Pope to apologise and "withdraw the insulting remarks".

Why?

Is it now illegal to quote from the past?

Let me make two points here:

• The Catholic church teaches that the pope is infallible; as such he can say what the fuck he likes, because God is speaking through him.
  
  Ain't religion wonderful?
  
  That being said, given this hotline to God, it would have been self evident that using such a comment from a long dead emperor would have caused a reaction from some quarters.
  
  
  
  Therefore the question not being asked, that should be asked, is why did he say it?
  
  The Vatican is now seeking to clarify the Pope's comments. Given his infallibility, surely this is unnecessary?
  
  Maybe the Pope is not infallible?
  
  That would kind of undermine a central part of Catholic teaching.



• With regard to the hysterical reaction from some Muslims, I would note this; where a religion is mature, intellectually resilient, open to debate and has faith in a "well rounded" deity, comments made by non believers should be easily weathered. Indeed the deity worshipped by that religion, given his all powerful nature, should be well able to stand up to verbal sticks and barbs without the need for hysteria amongst his earthly followers.
  
  It seems that such hysteria indicates that, at least amongst those who are hysterical, their faith and understanding in their own religion is not intellectually based but programmed into them; ie they have no real understanding as to why they are followers of that religion, and are afraid to question their own belief in their religion lest they find an answer that they don't like.

I have said it before, but it is worth saying again, religion has brought nothing but misery and violence to the world.

God, if he exists, does not need the creation of flawed man made religions to validate his existence.

Nanny Bans Catholics

Nanny's chums in the legislature of the People's Republic of Scotland, the protectors of free speech and tolerance (so long as you don't smoke and aren't English), have caused something of a minor storm in a wine chalice by banning the "good old" Catholic practice of crossing oneself.

Needless to say the trouble erupted during a football match between those two stalwarts of religious tolerance, Celtic (the Catholics) and Rangers (the Protestants). Those of you not familiar with some parts of Scotland need to appreciate that in certain areas, the feud between Catholic and Protestant is just one step away from erupting into Belfast in the 1970's.

Anyhoo, way back in February of this year Artur Boruc (goalkeeper) was playing for Celtic in a match against Rangers when he decided to make the sign of the cross.

To the religious scholars of Rangers this was a red rag to a bull, and needless to say there was a barrage of complaints. The police launched an investigation. Last week "judgement" was handed down, and Scottish prosecutors cautioned the hapless Boruc for a breach of the peace.

A Crown Office spokesman said Boruc's actions had "provoked alarm and crowd trouble".

The procurator fiscal had issued the caution as an alternative to prosecution; Boruc now has a criminal record.

Needless to say, Holy Mother Church is none too pleased over this result, and called it "worrying and alarming"; they argue that the sign of the cross was globally accepted as a "gesture of religious reverence".

Peter Kearney, spokesman for the Catholic Church, said:

"It's a worrying and alarming development,

especially since the sign of the cross is globally accepted

as a gesture of religious reverence

It's also very common in international football

and was commonplace throughout the World Cup.

It is extremely regrettable that Scotland

seems to have made itself one of the few countries in the world

where this simply religious gesture is considered an offence."

Even Ruth "Old Puss Dei" Kelly has waded in, saying she was none too happy with this result.

Now here I must declare an interest, for reasons that are totally unclear to me, my mother persuaded my father that I should be christened a Catholic. Three miserable years at a Catholic school, a system designed to destroy any vestiges of free thought and creativity, convinced me that this was not the path to follow; therefore I can assure you all that I am now a very lapsed ex Catholic.

Anyhoo, I have to say a wry smile crossed my lips when I read of Holy Mother Church's bleating about the ban; you will recall that Holy Mother Church has been more than happy over the centuries to ban all manner of books, films and people. It seems that whilst Holy Mother Church is happy to dish out bans, it is not so happy to be on the receiving end of them!

Hypocrisy, in the church?

Never!

However, as with all things involving Nanny nothing is ever as clear cut as it first may appear. Whilst banning the sign of the cross is to some an over reaction, and to others a necessary ploy to avoid brawls on the streets, there is a more worrying problem here. Nanny on the one hand bans this "inflammatory" gesture, yet all around us (were we inclined to feel offended) we see religious symbolism and gestures from a whole host of differing faiths that could, were one so inclined, be labelled as inflammatory.

Surely Nanny should be banning these as well?

The trouble is, Nanny is selective when she issues her banning orders; ie she is a hypocrite.

This whole sorry story is proof, if ever it were needed, that religion is the cause of most of the trouble in the world today.

I would personally ban all religion, and its symbolism.

God, if he exists, does not need a flawed man made religion to validate his existence.